The UK's next ambassador to Japan, Corin Robertson, finds herself at the center of a political storm, with a potential call to testify in the Mandelson inquiry. This inquiry delves into the controversial decision to grant Peter Mandelson security clearance, despite the advice of vetting officials.
Robertson, the Foreign Office's (FCDO) chief operating officer at the time, was involved in the January 2025 decision that granted Mandelson clearance. As the only official among three top civil servants involved in the decision, she has yet to be questioned by Parliament, leaving a gap in the investigation.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee, probing Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to the US, is considering calling Robertson to testify. This could be a crucial step in unraveling the complex web of decisions and influences that led to Mandelson's appointment.
The committee's investigation is nearing its conclusion, but it's expected to wait for further documents before finalizing its findings. The humble address system, a parliamentary mechanism, is being used to release these documents, but there are concerns about their completeness and potential censorship.
The controversy revolves around the decision-making process within the FCDO. Olly Robbins, the most senior civil servant, was sacked for failing to inform Keir Starmer about the vetting process. Robbins had granted Mandelson clearance despite the vetting agency's recommendation to deny it. This decision was made under pressure, according to Robbins' testimony.
The lack of written records and audit trails in the Foreign Office's decision-making process has made it challenging for MPs to piece together the events. Robertson's potential testimony could provide crucial corroboration for the discussions and briefings that took place.
The UKSV (United Kingdom Security Vetting) initially advised against Mandelson's clearance, citing 'high' concern. However, the decision was made, and the case was described as 'borderline' by Robbins and Collard, though no evidence has been publicly released to support this claim.
The inquiry also raises questions about the access to Mandelson's vetting file after his sacking. Robbins and Collard requested copies of the file, despite not reviewing it earlier, which has not been explained. Robertson's potential testimony could shed light on these actions and their motivations.
As the investigation continues, the release of documents under the humble address system is anticipated, but there are concerns about their completeness and potential censorship. The Intelligence and Security Committee has criticized the government's handling of sensitive documents, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.
